On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Paul Vixie <p...@redbarn.org> wrote:
> > > Paul Hoffman <paul.hoff...@vpnc.org> > Saturday, October 25, 2014 11:06 AM > > 1) It is a patent application, not a patent. > 2) The application was filed by Verisign, not Google. > > --Paul Hoffman > > > thanks. however, i was told google also has one on Q-M. that's the one i > thought this thread referred to. > Just an explicit "I personally do not know of any qname minimization patent(s) that Google has". I had heard some rumors of a Google patent regarding prepending nonces to add entropy, but that's completely different. W > > if verisign tries to enforce their patent against google, i will buy > popcorn, sit back, and watch. > > i do not believe that verisign's interests are aligned with enforcement of > a patent like this one. > > verisign should be asked to place a defense-only status on this patent. i > think they will do so. > > -- > Paul Vixie > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop > > -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place. This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants. ---maf
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
